Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (Score 0) 451

Uhmm ... I disagree. The banks were forced to give out loans to people THEY KNEW could not pay it back. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ... and was reinforced by Clinton in 1994 - Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown.

Actually, the United States mortgage market was working just fine until the Bush tax cuts. Suddenly, there was a flood of capital into financial markets, seeking safe haven, as the stock market was in free fall. T Bills were not the most attractive investment, since the Fed had dropped interest rates so low. What other investment had a better rate of return, and historically had been rock solid? Mortgage bonds. Suddenly, capital floods the mortgage market, and there is more demand for bonds than there is supply. Due to the repackaging of mortgages into securities, mortgage lenders were insulated from the consequences of making bad loans. There was suddenly a lot of money to be made (and therefore a lot of pressure to do so) by mortgage lenders ignoring their fiduciary duty and issuing loans they knew could not be paid back. This exacerbated the problem caused by derivatives trading, heralded by the failure of Long Term Capital Management in 1998. But nice try blaming it on the black people. Dick.

Comment Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (Score 4, Insightful) 451

I think you've missed the point of the OWS. Their point is: the banks wrecked the economy, probably criminally. They not only did not get punished, but they got 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money, which they then turned around and used to pay bonuses to the people that wrecked the economy. Meanwhile, people who did everything right - got good grades, borrowed money to pay for school, and got a degree - none of them can find a job. Not only can they not find a job, the government is doing nothing to help them. The issue is the double standard - if I am a rich bank, I can do whatever I want, and if I get into trouble, I get bailed out with taxpayer dollars, and if I am not a rich bank, then I'm screwed. It is not that they want a "bailout" - what they want is the government to spend its money helping its citizens in need rather than banks who deserve to fail for their incompetence.

Comment Re:Revolution is easy - No Debt. (Score 1) 1799

All of these things are great ideas. But personal responsibility is only one half of the equation. It used to be illegal to charge someone more than 10% interest. How about some reasonable regulation to protect those who are not smart enough to protect themselves? I'm not asking to dismantle our capitalist system...just swing the pendulum back a little more towards consumers, and not corporate interests. If that means it is too expensive to lend poor people money, then perhaps we shouldn't be lending poor people money.Speaking from experience, our system is heavily tilted - once you are poor, it is awfully hard to break out.

Comment Re:Total Lack of Cognitive Dissonance (Score 1) 2115

Your experience is anecdotal, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Statistically, the more educated you are, the more money you make - unless you are a teacher. These are demonstrable facts. And what is the relative cost of living in NJ? I suspect that all salaries are inflated over the national average, not just teachers.

Comment Re:Honest Question (Score 1) 2115

What do you think banks do? What do you think the stock market is?

I think banks suck money out of the system through things like front-running the market. I think the stock market is largely a casino for the mega rich.

Yes, when a corporation makes a stock offering, they are raising money that will hopefully create jobs. Once that initial money is raised, however, the stock market's function as a job creating vehicle is greatly reduced. If a company's stock price goes up 10%, the value of their holding may be valued more, and they may be able to borrow more on margin, but this is negligible compared to the amount of money raised during an IPO. Moreover, that increase in value will ONLY create jobs through capital expenditure. Banks also make money loaning money to businesses, who then in turn use that money in potential job creation. However, businesses only make large capital investments like this when there is unmet demand that they see can be exploited. When there is unexploited demand in the marketplace, money comes out of the woodwork to capture that market segment. I promise you there is no business in the US that is lacking for investment funds to satisfy demonstrable unmet demand. In short, in our current economic climate, there is no unmet demand. No amount of capital investment can create demand; capital investment creates supply. This is why economists refer to your views as supply side economics, trickle down, or my preferred term, fucking voodoo. The solution to our economic woes are to increase demand. That means putting money in the hands of people who will spend it, not people who will invest it. For further information, I suggest picking up any high school level economics book. Supply and demand should be well covered.

Comment Obama's plan is not designed to do anything (Score 2) 2115

And this is not a knock on Obama. Here is the inside baseball on the 2012 election:

The Republicans have a vested interest in the economy remaining poor. If the economy improves, Obama will be re-elected. This is almost a certainty, given his favorability numbers. Conversely, if the economy remains poor, Obama stands a good chance of losing.
The people who decide elections in this country are "swing" voters, or LIVs (low information voters). These voters tend to decide who they want to vote for based on their gut feeling, and then find reasons to justify this decision. This is why incumbent presidents almost always win in a good economy, and lose far more often in a bad one. Even if the Obama jobs proposal would completely turn the economy around, and give us all ponies, the Republicans won't let it pass. So, Obama has rolled out this package, knowing Republicans will vote against it, and then will campaign throughout this election cycle on their obstructionism. His only chance is to get those LIVs to think twice at the voting booth - to firmly implant in their minds that Republicans care more about millionaires than them. This jobs bill is not about jobs - it is about exposing Republicans for the obstructionists they (currently) are, in the most public way possible.

Comment Re:Total Lack of Cognitive Dissonance (Score 1) 2115

My brother has two masters degrees, teaches in the one of the best public schools in the country, and has for 15 years. I have a Bachelors in General Studies, and 8 years experience. I make more than he does. He also pays $800 a month to insure his family. I pay $150. I suspect you are cherry picking your statistics.

Comment Re:.... right... (Score 1) 2115

BULLSHIT. If they want to leave, let them leave. Other people will compete for the business they left behind. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of US executives DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN CHINA, AND WILL NOT LEAVE. You must think we are all stupid.

Comment Re:Honest Question (Score 4, Insightful) 2115

I'm sorry, but history does not bear this out. the tax rate during Eisenhower was 90%. People still became millionaires. The tax rate during Reagan was 50%. People still became millionaires. I call bullshit. You worked hard because that is who you are. You would have done the same no matter what the financial rewards. If you really want to take your business elsewhere, go for it. There are plenty of people willing to compete for your customers. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to China.

Comment Re:Yeah, class warfare. That's right. (Score 2) 2115

We do tax everyone. We all pay payroll taxes, even the poor. This is a right wing meme that is really kind of disgusting in its dishonesty. Tell you what. Let's stop taxing people. Let's start taxing transactions. Every time money moves from one place to another, let's let the government take a micro-portion as tax. That way, we wall get taxed exactly the same - corporations, rich people, poor people, banks, even the government. That would be fair now, wouldn't it?

Comment Re:Honest Question (Score 1) 2115

Once you get to a certain income level, it gets difficult to spend more money. When you have enough money to literally satisfy your every whim, what else is there? You start saving it, or gambling it in the stock market, or putting it in hedge funds where it doesn't get taxed. If you were to spread that wealth out to people who can't satisfy their every whim, then it will flow back into "the system".

Slashdot Top Deals

What ever you want is going to cost a little more than it is worth. -- The Second Law Of Thermodynamics